Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If that's true, then SCOTUS has no choice other than to rule the ACA unconstitutional, given the very clear language of the law prohibiting some but not all from subsidy eligibility.
They could just rule party of it too. It isn't an all or nothing proposition with the supreme court. But you already knew that.
No, "intent" is very subjective and has no place at the Supreme Court level. Only objective rulings at that level fulfill the mandate of that 3rd arm of our Federal Government. Both the Executive and the Legislative branches are obviously operating on subjective levels. SCOTUS has to be objective or we lose the balance intended by our Constitution.
If strict objectivity there would be no need for the Courts in the first place, but all laws and in every circumstance is not as clear cut as you like them to be so it is the Courts role interpret what a law says and what it was intended to do.
Eventually there will be some form of national healthcare system in the US. Roberts knows that.
I don't see how. The countries that have national healthcare have VAT taxes ranging from 10% to 20%+ to pay for it. Do you think Americans would agree to burden the middle class and below with taxes that will hit them the hardest to fund national health care?
The intent of a law does not matter though when a law goes in front of the Supreme Court for a ruling. The Supreme Court only determines if a law is fully constitutional, partly constitutional/unconstitutional or fully unconstitutional.
Actually the Court does have a choice, it can review the law based upon legislative intent or it could use strict scrutiny. Legislative intent would look at the law in its entirety including statements made members of Congress and the Executive branch.
Well, good luck with that. As I posted earlier, the ACA law itself actually defines "state."
"STATE -- In this title, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia."
AND the term "Exchange established by the State" appears 10 times in the ACA, including the section that limits subsidies to only those who purchase insurance through an "Exchange established by the State."
If that's true, then SCOTUS has no choice other than to rule the ACA unconstitutional, given the very clear language of the law prohibiting some but not all from subsidy eligibility.
Wow...the uninformed information here is amazing.
#1 the supreme court has already ruled the ACA constitutional. Period. They arent ruling on the law, they are ONLY ruling on one part.
#2 WORST case is they will say only state ran exchanges get subsidies.....thats it.
AND the term "Exchange established by the State" appears 10 times in the ACA, including the section that limits subsidies to only those who purchase insurance through an "Exchange established by the State."
What part of "statements made by members of congress" dd you miss?
Sigh. Why do I bother. This is a democraticc win no matter which way.
Win-Supreme court enforces the state subsidy only idea. Suddenly Republicans are blamed for millions losing insurance, AND their refusal to fix it correctly
Win-Supreme court says its federal or state as per congressional intent. Everything carries on.
Exactly. That's why the ACA is unconstitutional. Not all are treated equally, and it was specifically written to be that way.
Please, you're being treated equally.
Just like with the medicaid in only some states...thats by those states CHOICE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
